Facebook has a fake news problem. Google has an evil unicorn problem.
"Evil unicorns" — a term some Google engineers once coined, according to a former executive — are unverified posts on obscure topics, full of lies. They pop up from time to time on the web and find their way into Google's search results. In an ideal world, Google's search algorithm should force these fake, pernicious creatures so low in search results that they are buried deep in the web where few can find them.
Here's the problem: These unicorns — no, they've got nothing to do with highly valued startups — are designed to surface in a void. And after a breaking news event, like a mass shooting, there's scant verified information for Google's engine to promote. As Jonathan Swift once wrote, falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it.
[...] After the Oct. 1 Las Vegas shooting, several accounts seemed to coordinate an effort to smear Geary Danley, a man misidentified as the shooter, with false claims about his political ties. There were no existing web pages or videos broadcasting that Danley was innocent, and in the absence of verified information, Google's algorithms rewarded the lies, placing inaccurate tweets, videos and posts at the top of search results. A month later, when Devin Patrick Kelley shot and killed 26 people in Sutherland Springs, Texas, YouTube videos and tweets mislabeled him as "antifa," a term for radical, anti-fascist protesters. This was not true, yet Google displayed these posts prominently.
[...] This is a familiar headache for the company. For years, Google fought and won a similar battle with spammers, content farms and so-called search engine optimization experts over which web pages should be shown at the top of search results. But these latest web manipulators are causing greater havoc by targeting a slightly different part of Google — its real-time news and video results.
Source: Inside Google's Struggle to Filter Lies from Breaking News
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @09:50AM (9 children)
Consider senator Al Franken in Google's image search. Right now, the most important image by far is the one with him groping the sleeping reporter. This is current news, but it doesn't even show up.
You have to add additional search terms to get even a couple of that into the search results. You won't get any help from autocomplete either. Type his name followed by grope, and at no point does Google autocomplete the word grope. All sorts of silly suggestions are offered.
Google is protecting him. He's on their team.
For months, Google was protecting senator Bob Menendez too. The protection seems weak today, probably because there was a mistrial. He's a democrat facing charges for underage prostitutes and corruption. That got almost zero news coverage; it was about a minute **total** on most TV networks during the first trial.
Meanwhile, we've heard more than enough about Moore, but little about the obviously forged evidence. Moore is on the other team you see, so he gets no protection.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday November 19 2017, @01:24PM
No, it does not make sense that the groping image should take precedence over his official Senate portrait and the thousands of others taken of him. Although I did see the groping image in the search.
As for Google:
YouTube accidentally flagged an official Google Chromebook ad as spam [theverge.com]
There are many reasons for their algorithms to fuck up.
"The protection seems weak today?" No shit, a mistrial is more newsworthy than day-to-day trial news.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 19 2017, @02:35PM (3 children)
Compare two searches:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=democrat+charged+with+child+molestation&t=hf&ia=web [duckduckgo.com]
https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&source=hp&ei=YZURWvGuE5GcmwGuk5jQBg&q=democrat+charged+with+child+molestation&oq=democrat+charged+with+child+molestation&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4019.21982.0.25236.49.34.0.0.0.0.1186.5552.0j1j4j6j1j1j0j1.14.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..35.10.3758.0..0j0i131k1j0i10k1j0i22i30k1.0.Sc7bA-Dx-fI [google.com]
And, I am intentionally leaving that Google URL intact. What does all that crap mean? The URL should end much earlier. All those numbers mean - what? The algorithm working to filter stuff it doesn't want you to see? Whatever, I feel like the duck-people are probably more reliable than the lizard-people.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @04:18PM
What it means? Probably an internal pointer to link with the sex toys and drugs you looked at at some time.
(Score: 4, Funny) by HiThere on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:13PM (1 child)
When I do the search it comes back with:
https://www.google.com/search?q=democrat+charged+with+child+molestations&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 [google.com]
OTOH, I am running noscript, so maybe what it's saying is you should be running noscript
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:23PM
Forget NoScript -- if you just type "democrat charged with child molestation !g" into DuckDuckGo, you'll get a link here:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=democrat%20charged%20with%20child%20molestation [google.com]
All the other crap in Runaway's URL is likely "personalization" that probably makes it more likely your Google search will slant toward your views.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday November 19 2017, @06:34PM
Hmm... I just searched here:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=al%20franken&tbs=imgo:1 [google.com]
It's true that the first two images that show up are hits from official portraits on Wikipedia. But out of the top 20 image hits I see, 16 of them are to stories about the sexual harassment accusations. So it's more than a bit disingenuous to say that the story "doesn't show up." Maybe that particular photo doesn't show up, but did you search for "Al Franken" or "Al Franken groping reporter"? If you search for "Al Franken," you'd expect more generic images of him to show up -- though in fact, as I said, the VAST MAJORITY of top hits are to stories about the current scandal.
Given that hit #20 in Google images for "Al Franken" (after over a dozen linked images to the scandal) is actually a photo of TRUMP, from an article about Trump commenting on the Franken scandal, I think you're full of crap here.
Keep in mind that Google IMAGE search is about looking for IMAGES of the target search items. It's NOT a "news" search (which is separate on Google), nor is it even a general web search. The fact that the images are SO skewed toward the scandal actually surprises me...
(Score: 4, Informative) by julian on Monday November 20 2017, @03:26AM (2 children)
In that photo, he is not touching her body. Check for yourself, you can see the shadow of his hands on her flakvest. He's hovering a few inches away, pantomiming groping her in a tasteless and inappropriate attempt at humor. He also admitted to misconduct, issued a prompt and unqualified apology, and accepted responsability including calling for an investigation into his conduct.
Roy Moore was banned from a Mall in 1979 when he was in his 30s for trying to pick up high school girls. There are 8 accusers, the youngest 14 at the time, with independently verified stories of sexual misconduct by Moore.
To even attempt to compare these two cases is beyond contempt and you should be ashamed of yourself.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @04:43AM (1 child)
According to both a manager and guard from the Gadsen mall, Roy Moore was not banned:
http://www.wbrc.com/clip/13905910/former-gadsden-mall-manager-says-roy-moore-wasnt-banned [wbrc.com]
The "evidence" against Roy Moore includes a yearbook entry intended to show that an accuser knew Roy Moore. There are numerous problems with it.
The signature claims to be from Christmas. Yearbooks are normally printed after a prom, which happens in spring.
The ink is in two colors. There are numerous minor differences in the handwriting, a slight change in orientation of the lines of text, and a redundant date. It seems that an entry for "Ray" was extended. The signature reads the same as one from the woman's divorce papers, which is especially damning for many reasons:
The accuser claims all sorts of abuse, yet later had Roy Moore as a judge for her divorce case. She never objected to having him hear the case, and he didn't recuse himself. This would not normally happen.
The signature reads "Roy Moore DA". Roy Moore was never a district attorney. He was a deputy district attorney at the time, which would be DDA, but signing that in a yearbook would be weird.
Roy Moore was later a judge. Papers could be signed by autopen (mechanical signature device), with a legal requirement for the person doing that to write their initials. At the time of the accuser's divorce, Roy Moore's assistant was named Delber Adams. The signature would thus appear as "Roy Moore DA".
In other words, the accuser copied a signature from her divorce. She somehow thought "DA" was part of it, and that it might mean "district attorney".
CNN's Wolf Blitzer asks Gloria Allred eight times if the signature is a forgery, and she refuses to answer all eight times. Hmmm.
As for the other accusers... look, the fact that horrific holes might not be found in every evidence-free claim does not mean the claims are legit. One claim is already blown out of the water. That casts plenty of suspicion on the rest of them.
Oh, Al Franken also violently kissed the woman, pushing his tongue into her mouth against her will. This qualifies as a sexual assault. There are witnesses.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday November 20 2017, @05:53AM
You're only adding to your shame with this pedo and rape apologia. Please post under your real name so this slime can follow your identity on this site. You're despicable.